S.Shahul Hameed v. U.Nasar Khan And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** CO/26/2024 S.Shahul Hameed and another Vs U.Nasar Khan and Others Mr.Gopala Binnu Kumar ... for the petitioners Mr. Arul Prasanth ... for the respondent/OP No.1 Mr. N.A.Khan ... for the Waqf Board August 6, 2024 [SR] Item No.46 The petitioner challenges an order dated June 10, 2024, passed by the Waqf Tribunal (Civil Judge Senior Division), South Andaman, by filing this revisional application.

The opposite party No.1 has filed a suit before the Waqf Tribunal, being W.T.No.02 of 2024 claiming, inter alia, the following reliefs:

"i.

A decree to declare Masjidun Noor is Official Name of the above Masjid.

ii.

A decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from using the wrong name of Masjide-Noor in any manner .

iii.

Cost of the suit.

iv.

An interim order restraining the defendant from using the wrong name of Masjid-e-Noor in place of registered name of Masjidun Noor.

v.

Any other relief or relief's in which the plaintiff is entitled to law and equity."

In the suit, the opposite party No.1 herein filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for temporary injunction against the defendants in the suit. The learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Port Blair, who acts as Waqf Tribunal, granted ex parte ad interim injunction restraining the defendant in the suit from using "the unofficial name of mosque i.e. Masjid-eNoor in place of Masjidun Noor". The ad interim order has been extended till September 04, 2024.

Being aggrieved by the ex parte ad-interim order of injunction, the defendant nos.2 and 3 in the suit have come up by way of this revisional application.

Mr.Gopala Binnu Kumar, learned advocate for the petitioner draws my attention to various documents in support of his submission that the actual name of the concerned mosque is Masjid-e-Noor. He showed a communication dated August 14, 2023, signed by the Chief Executive Officer of the Waqf Board, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Port Blair, addressed to the Secretary, Masjid-eNoor, intimating the constitution of an ad hoc committee for the management of the Masjid-e-Noor mosque and to conduct proper audit of accounts pertaining to the Mosque Committee and to hold election in terms of the bye-laws. My attention is also drawn to a communication dated April 21, 2015, issued by the Chief Executive Officer of the Waqf Board to the Secretary of the concerned Mosque intimating that the Registration number of Masjid-e-Noor Wakf is 43 of 2014.

Per contra, learned advocate for the opposite party No.1/plaintiff drew my attention to an order dated July 04, 2016, issued by the Chief Executive Officer, Waqf Board, which is to the effect that "the bye-laws approved by the Board for rendering proper and better administration to the Waqf Masjidun Noor, Phongy Kyong is hereby enforced with immediate effect."

Learned advocate also drew my attention to the byelaws of the concerned Waqf which refer to the concerned Mosque as Masjidun Noor.

I therefore find that there are documents issued by the Chief Executive Officer of the Waqf Board, in some of which the Mosque has been referred to as Masjidun Noor and in some others as Masjid-e-Noor. The issue as to which is the correct name is pending before the learned Trial Court.

Several disputed questions of fact are involved and obviously there is a quarrel between two rival groups.

Let the learned Trial Court shall decide such questions of fact. One must bear in mind that the scope of Article 227 of the Constitution of India is limited. While exercising the extraordinary jurisdiction, the High Court does not act as an Appellate Court. The role of the High Court while exercising that jurisdiction is that of a supervisory court and such power is to be exercised to keep the subordinate courts and tribunals within their jurisdictional limits and to correct glaring errors of law on the face of the order under challenge. The High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not equipped to deal with disputed questions of fact. I am not inclined to interfere with the order under challenge. The defendants in the suit will be at liberty to file written objection to the injunction application by August 12, 2024.

I request the learned Trial Court to dispose of the injunction application at the earliest and preferably within two weeks from the date of filing of the written objection. I make it clear that I have not entered into the merits of the case. The learned Trial Court shall decide the issues before it independently, in accordance with law, without being uninfluenced by any observation made in this order. The Registry is directed to immediately communicate this order to the learned Trial Court.

CO/26/2024 is disposed of accordingly.

( Arijit Banerjee, J.)